Who has an iPad?

Everskyward said:
I don't. Sometime I think about getting one but it would be another thing to carry around. I travel with a MacBook Air and I have an iPhone so I haven't been able to justify an iPad so far.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I got an iPad 2gen to run FF, then decided to get a Macbook Air for kicks and an iPhone for FF backup. Never leave home without it.
Pilawt said:
Foreflight on an iPad 2 and on a mini-mini-iPad (aka iPhone 4).

Is the upgrade worthwhile?
Click to expand...
That was exactly my setup until I left my iPad 2 out on the deck during several rain showers. I would still be running that today but replaced it with a gen 3. If nothing is 'wrong' I'd stay with the 2 until the last possible moment. The 3 is faster and slightly smaller but doesn't noticeably improve FF. It's faster but I don't really care with FF.

At some point, FF will offer features that work too slow or don't work at all - that's the time to buy the latest iPad. Maybe that's today, don't know.
 
I never fly without my Ipad mini and Foreflight pro.
 
FastEddieB said:
For years, if I had just a handheld GPS, I would say something like...

"Miami Center, N74629 can navigate direct xxx with an unapproved GPS".

Routinely they would respond, "N74629, that's approved. Cleared direct xxx, via own navigation. Advise of any change."

As long as we were in radar contact, I can't recall ever being turned down.

But that was a long time ago, and I would not have dreamed of filing /G.
Click to expand...

Why would you tell a controller that you're navigating direct anywhere with a unapproved GPS when you're required to have an IFR GPS? Just keep it to yourself if you want to break the regs. I find it hard to believe any controller would clear you direct anywhere when you already told them you're navigating with an unapproved GPS.

Radar contact has nothing to do with navigating with a VFR GPS direct while IFR. The regs clearly state they must give you a vector under radar monitoring until you recieve the NAVAID. That means you adhere to the vector until you can navigate by an approved means (VOR).
 
LDJones said:
Just use your best dead reckoning skills towards LLEEO, then confirm your nav judgment with the GPS....for situational awareness.
Click to expand...
I guess I can fly towards Pelee Island, but that's a lot of Lake Erie ;)
 
Velocity173 said:
Why would you tell a controller that you're navigating direct anywhere with a unapproved GPS when you're required to have an IFR GPS? Just keep it to yourself if you want to break the regs. I find it hard to believe any controller would clear you direct anywhere when you already told them you're navigating with an unapproved GPS.

Radar contact has nothing to do with navigating with a VFR GPS direct while IFR. The regs clearly state they must give you a vector under radar monitoring until you recieve the NAVAID. That means you adhere to the vector until you can navigate by an approved means (VOR).
Click to expand...

Yeah I would have phrased it "Can you give me a direct vector to XXX?" Then they're off the hook and you're off the hook.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Yeah I would have phrased it "Can you give me a direct vector to XXX?" Then they're off the hook and you're off the hook.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I gave my share of vectors outside of NAVAID limitations before the days of GPS with /U guys. Completely legal if controller initiates or pilot requests if under radar coverage. Obviously the whole point of monitoring them is to ensure they're heading to the NAVAID until they're within reception and can proceed on their own.

Having said that, is it stupid that you can follow an inaccurate vector for 80 miles when you could easily do it with an ipad with far better accuracy? Yep.
 
I think the proper question on this forum is "who doesn't have an Ipad?":)
To answer your question, I have an Ipad. I think its the 2nd version but I'm not too sure. I don't use it for flying other than taking pictures or videos really
 
Velocity173 said:
Why would you tell a controller that you're navigating direct anywhere with a unapproved GPS when you're required to have an IFR GPS? Just keep it to yourself if you want to break the regs. I find it hard to believe any controller would clear you direct anywhere when you already told them you're navigating with an unapproved GPS.
Click to expand...

1) There was not a requirement then to have an IFR GPS. I don't think there is now, either. I was using an "unauthorized" device, with permission, to decrease vectoring and workload.

2) I don't think any regs were broken. "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person shall..." covers a lot of sins*. It's ancient history now, but I would be curious as to the reg you think I broke**.

3) I understand you find it hard to believe. But the controllers were accommodating, I got where I was going, and I don't think anyone found the request nor the clearance unusual.


*Back in the early 80's I was flying a C150 into College Park, MD. I advised Washington Approach that I was "Negative transponder, negative encoder", and would remain clear of the TCA. They cleared me to fly abeam all the monuments and fly right up the Anacostia River. "Otherwise authorized by ATC" is great, though I would NOT expect the same handling today. :no:

** 39 years and 6,700+ hours as a pilot and flight instructor, and (knock on wood) no violations or accidents to date. Hardly the scofflaw you seem to think I might be.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
1) There was not a requirement then to have an IFR GPS. I don't think there is now, either. I was using an "unauthorized" device, with permission, to decrease vectoring and workload.

2) I don't think any regs were broken. "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person shall..." covers a lot of sins*. It's ancient history now, but I would be curious as to the reg you think I broke.

3) I understand you find it hard to believe. But the controllers were accommodating, I got where I was going, and I don't think anyone found the request nor the clearance unusual.


*Back in the early 80's I was flying a C150 into College Park, MD. I advised Washington Approach that I was "Negative transponder, negative encoder", and would remain clear of the TCA. They cleared my to fly abeam all the monuments and fly right up the Anacostia River. "Otherwise authorized by ATC" is great, though I would NOT expect the same handling today. :no:
Click to expand...

??? The "VFR GPS for IFR NAV" topic is has been covered at length on POA. Not to mention any search of said subject online will provide many returns. AOPA has an excellent tutorial on the uses and restriction of a VFR handheld GPS.

Your handheld is not certfied for IFR ops and as such is not allowed to be the primary nav to proceed direct anything under IFR. You already dimed yourself out by telling the controller you hand an "unapproved GPS." The fact that he allowed it doesn't make it right. From the AIM:

[SIZE=-2]TBL 1-1-6[/SIZE]
GPS Approval Required/Authorized Use​

NOTE-​
[SIZE=-2]1[/SIZE]To determine equipment approvals and limitations, refer to the AFM, AFM supplements, or pilot guides.
[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]Requires verification of data for correctness if database is expired.
[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database.
[SIZE=-2]4[/SIZE]VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a primary instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational awareness.
[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE]Hand-held receivers require no approval. However, any aircraft modification to support the hand-held receiver; i.e., installation of an external antenna or a permanent mounting bracket, does require approval.
 
I just bought an iPad 2. My first Apple consumer product. Trying to two hand type or is hard cause you can't rest your fingers on the pad. I'm getting better but it's different. So far I like it ok. I bought the big screen just so I could type and see easily and it's rather nice. I'm going with the bad elf Gps and Foreflight soon.
 
Well, live and learn.

This was in my Tiger, before I had an approved 430 installed.

Just never was an issue back then.

Maybe I was lucky!

I now return you to the topic at hand.
 
Sac Arrow said:
But there is nothing wrong with filing as a /a or whatever and requesting a really long direct vector. I've done that when I've filed as a /a with an enroute legal GPS. They know you have a GPS but legally your primary nav is the compass and DG.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "enroute legal GPS"? If it was an IFR enroute legal GPS such as an Apollo GX55, you should file /G with that. There's nothing about /G that implies it's approach certified.
 
FastEddieB said:
1) There was not a requirement then to have an IFR GPS. I don't think there is now, either. I was using an "unauthorized" device, with permission, to decrease vectoring and workload.
Click to expand...

If you're IFR and you are trying to go direct to a navaid that you're not yet receiving or you're trying to go direct to a fix, and you're not on a vector, yes you do need an IFR GPS.

You can punch in direct to whatever on a GPS and advise ATC that "a vector of 345 will take me to FIXXX" and they can give it to you - But they're accepting some responsibility for you then.

Also, YOU are the PIC. Period. It's not ATC's job to keep you safe or legal, and they know what's in the 7110.65, not what's in the FARs. They can allow you to do anything you ask for, provided it doesn't violate the 7110.65, and you'll still be in trouble if something happens. (Also, remember the adage about what happens when pilots or controllers screw up.)

2) I don't think any regs were broken. "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person shall..." covers a lot of sins*. It's ancient history now, but I would be curious as to the reg you think I broke**.
Click to expand...

Can you point to the spot in the FAR/AIM that says "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC" for navigation via IFR or any blanket reg that would cover it? That sort of thing does appear in a few places, but it's a lot fewer than I think you think it is.

** 39 years and 6,700+ hours as a pilot and flight instructor, and (knock on wood) no violations or accidents to date. Hardly the scofflaw you seem to think I might be.
Click to expand...

Just because you get away with it doesn't mean it's legal.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What do you mean by "enroute legal GPS"? If it was an IFR enroute legal GPS such as an Apollo GX55, you should file /G with that. There's nothing about /G that implies it's approach certified.
Click to expand...

With an expired database? Probably better choice to file as an /a or a /u as appropriate. Otherwise, I see no reason why one is compelled to file as a /g if so equipped.
 
Sac Arrow said:
With an expired database? Probably better choice to file as an /a or a /u as appropriate. Otherwise, I see no reason why one is compelled to file as a /g if so equipped.
Click to expand...

Certainly not, but there's a common misconception that you must be approach certified to file /G, and that's simply not true.
 
I've got a first gen iPad mini which I love. I also have a couple year old MacBook Pro.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Just because you get away with it doesn't mean it's legal.
Click to expand...

As I said before, "Live and learn".

I recall that I was technically still "radar vectors", but approved for "own navigation" with ATC acknowledgement of non-approved method. If the whole thing was patently illegal, even with ATC authorization, I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has long since expired. ;)

I'm operating as a Sport Pilot now, so I doubt this will ever be a concern again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top